It’s actually not stupid or evil to appeal only to one demographic. In fact, it’s smart. It’s a smart bet and a business savvy move. It’s how stuff is made that appeals to you. I watch Supernatural because the hole in my heart left by being a huge atheist (what a lot of people seem to think) I like watching that kind of show. And it caters to that kind of audience.

What the Abercrombie CEO believes is not “I should cater to a demographic” it’s that everyone who isn’t in his favorite demo is a second-class citizen. So please stop citing intelligent/somewhat ethical business practice as a defense of Mike Jeffries, Internet.

John Hemingway said:

The design team was looking at the concept art and thought, you know what, this is actually the cutest character we’ve ever had. I want to make, for the lack of a better term, the girlfriend skill tree.

This is, “I love Borderlands and I want to share it with someone, but they suck at first-person shooters.” Can we make a skill tree that actually allows them to understand the game and to play the game? That’s what our attempt with the Best Friends Forever skill tree is.

That’s cool, being able to have non-gamers give it a whirl might be a great feature, except you tied it to a gender. He later went on to tweet:

Borderlands 2 does NOT have a girlfriend mode. Anyone that says otherwise is misinformed or trying to stir up something that isn’t there.

It is there, though. You just exposed yourself as a misogynist, ass.

You know what “wife mode” would be like for my house? “Regular mode.” She doesn’t like games as a consequence of me liking games, which is apparently why people who make games think women play games (except Irrational Games).

Look, if a guy has a girlfriend who doesn’t like games and does what he can to shove games down their throat, it’s not going to make their relationship better. In fact, there is probably a conflict brewing as gaming is such a lifestyle-oriented interest.

PEOPLE like games, why the hell is it so hard for these jerks to get it?

This is probably my last Infinite post for a while, but I felt the need to address one more issue on it. Sexism, which, on the surface I believe there is quite a bit in BioShock Infinite. A lot of gender roles are fulfilled at some points in the game, but then often turned upside down. It’s 1912. It’s historically accurate - but then it also does a lot to show these things can be made different.

All the alternate universes in Infinite are born from different choices and variables. Every crossroad creates two universes. Rosalind and Robert Lutece - from a story perspective - likely are different genders specifically so you can tell them apart. From a character perspective, Rosalind is a fatalist while Robert is an optimist… Why do you suppose that is? Her entire life she was likely told she can’t be what she is (an intelligent physicist and inventor) due to her gender. That would breed fatalism as much as being a white male in those times (with the same brain, same ideas, same IQ) would breed optimism. The point isn’t sexism (just as it also isn’t racism), the point is historical accuracy.

And she succeeded in the end, proving a lot of people wrong. She invented a lot of technology that is super spoiler-y and I’ll leave alone for this post. Speaking of spoilers, might be good to stop reading here if you haven’t played the game.

The only issue I have some disappointment over is that I wish there were a way for you to play as a female Booker DeWitt. By all intents and purposes, there is an alternate universe where he is a her (Brooklyn DeWitt?). Just as there is one where Elizabeth is Elijah or some other male name. That would require an insane amount of work (and about double the budget, most likely), however, and I partially understand why they didn’t do it.

Daisy Fitzroy is said to “need a man” to complete what it is she is doing. I don’t believe this; she only used Booker because he was publicized as some kind of enemy to the Founders. It literally doesn’t matter to her what gender Booker is, just that his name is associated with False Shepherd and that can be used. Daisy Fitzroy is apparently one of the highest IQ characters in Columbia, as well, if you read some of her background info. She is leading a rebellion against an oppressive regime and delegating responsibility to many different sources; she is who is answered to. Pretty feminist, if you ask me. Yes, she turns out to be bad, but everyone does except Elizabeth, who turns out to be the most powerful, most intelligent, and only well-adjusted character in the game.

Booker is shown the way by Elizabeth. He’s in denial and has been for decades. She gets out of the tower and pretty much figures out life, while Booker only develops as a person because of her. You might think she only assists, but the woman leads. She is the one with her hand on the leash by the end of the game. One might argue this would never have happened unless a male character intervened with her life, but one might argue that this exact same turn of events has happened in another universe with a male Liz and a female Booker. That’s the point of the game. The point of the NAME of the game, even. That this story happens in an infinite number of ways with many different variables, but it always happens. I would make the argument that it actually makes the genders of the characters utterly unimportant.

In fact, it makes almost everything about the characters unimportant except their motivations. External differences will only have a shallow effect on their attitudes, but their motivations would remain exactly the same. That’s the point.

I’m not defending sexism, as it is present in the game. But I really just don’t believe it’s a sexist game. Racism is present in the game as well, but it’s most certainly not a racist game. Ken Levine and company are notorious overthinkers and I do not believe this is an issue that they didn’t discuss while creating the game. I think he’s talked about racism a lot more as that seems to be what the media has brought attention to, but when asked about sexism, he noted that Elizabeth was the most powerful person in Columbia and when given freedom, became the best person in the game.

I’ve summarized this, of course, but the point is simple: nothing is as it seems in BioShock Infinite.

In this “wow, did he actually say that” moment, Esquire editor Alex Bilmes, speaking on a panel about feminism in advertising, said this:

“The women we feature in the magazine are ornamental… I could lie to you if you want and say we are interested in their brains as well. We are not. They are objectified.”

He went on to say things basically implying he wanted a cookie for being honest about it, as well as the “shape and age diversity” the magazine exhibits.

And in the comments section of a lot of articles I have read about it, I have read a LOT of comments with the basic idea of “well, women are showing themselves off to make money or for attention, what is Esquire doing wrong? They deserve some credit for being honest.”

Women are not media conglomerates. You aren’t, and nor am I. Media conglomerates like Esquire’s parent company, the Hearst Corporation, are media conglomerates, and their insistence on portraying women in such a way is what encourages society to regard women in the way it does. A model showing off clothing, a product, or even themselves does not, though; it’s all about context.

What context does Esquire (or any magazine like it) provide? Well, as we were told in no mistakable terms, an ornamental one. His claims of diversity are very obviously overstated, on top of that.

Read More

actionactioncut:

“The stigma of being labelled a sex offender will follow those boys all their lives because of one mistake.”

“We can’t be too quick to judge, we don’t know what really happened.”

“Who hasn’t done something regrettable back when they were young and foolish?”

How about “what they did is reprehensible and I couldn’t look them straight in the eye.”

I’m sorry. I play Devil’s Advocate all the time because its the only way to get people to be interesting sometimes, but I literally could never say any of that.

(via thegrandestofadventures)